Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
When passing a function to another function which should calculate the result and then pass that value as an argument to another function, I've discovered that I could "compose" the following code in 5 different ways.
let testnum testFun =
testFun 4
printfn "result: %b" (testnum (=) 0)
printfn "result: %b" <| testnum (<) 0
printfn "result: %b" (testnum <| (>=) 0)
testnum <| (=) 0 |> printfn "result: %b"
printfn "resutl: %b" << testnum <| (<>) 0
I do like the style without parentheses more but now I'm wondering, is there a preferred style assuming my goal is readability and supportability of my code?
For your example I would have picked the first one:
printfn "result: %b" (testnum (=) 0)
The second one is passable:
printfn "result: %b" <| testnum (<) 0
The others are too contrived, they look like exercise in obfuscation.
I do use "backward" pipe operator exclusively in two situations:
when I have a type constructor that would need nested parentheses otherwise, so Some <| Foo ("bar", "baz") instead of Some (Foo ("bar", "baz"))
when I want to pass a single anonymous function as a last argument - it communicates nicely where the action is at:
lock sync <| fun () ->
...
For what is worth, if there are multiple anonymous functions passed as arguments, I would usually parenthesize each one of them instead (the notable exception being when one of them is a few characters long one liner and the other has multiple lines - then I would still go with the above syntax).
As for pipelining, I would usually go with |> for longer pipelines, and use function composition >> for shorter ones, when I don't need to refer to the argument again in the body of the function.
I don't think I would ever put |> and <| in the same line without parenthesizing one of them. It just looks odd.
Prefer pipe |>, this help with inference and readability
(=) 3 |> testnum |> printfn "result: %b"
you can easy break it on multiple lines
(=) 3
|> testnum
|> printfn "result: %b"
if arguments are few, you can pass them directly
testnum (=) 4 |> printfn "result: %b"
but use pipe |> or composition >> like g x |> f or x |> g |> f instead of nested function call f(g(x)), is more idiomatic. This also help with inference, for example instead of the . operator
open System.Linq
let double x = x * 2
let double1 items = items |> Seq.map double
[1;2;3] |> double1 |> printfn "%A"
//this doesn't compile,
//error: Lookup on object of indeterminate type based on information prior to this program point. A type annotation may be needed ..
//
// let double2 items = items.Select(double)
// [1;2;3] |> double2 |> printfn "%A"
let double3 (items:seq<_>) = items.Select(double)
[1;2;3] |> double3 |> printfn "%A"
example: https://dotnetfiddle.net/K0u3NQ
Related
I am learning F# and the use cases of the |>, >>, and << operators confuse me. I get that everything if statements, functions, etc. act like variables but how do these work?
Usually we (community) say the Pipe Operator |> is just a way, to write the last argument of a function before the function call. For example
f x y
can be written
y |> f x
but for correctness, this is not true. It just pass the next argument to a function. So you could even write.
y |> (x |> f)
All of this, and all other kind of operators works, because in F# all functions are curried by default. This means, there exists only functions with one argument. Functions with many arguments, are implemented that a functions return another function.
You could also write
(f x) y
for example. The function f is a function that takes x as argument and returns another function. This then gets y passed as an argument.
This process is automatically done by the language. So if you write
let f x y z = x + y + z
it is the same as:
let f = fun x -> fun y -> fun z -> x + y + z
Currying is by the way the reason why parenthesis in a ML-like language are not enforced compared to a LISP like language. Otherwise you would have needded to write:
(((f 1) 2) 3)
to execute a function f with three arguments.
The pipe operator itself is just another function, it is defined as
let (|>) x f = f x
It takes a value x as its first argument. And a function f as its second argument. Because operators a written "infix" (this means between two operands) instead of "prefix" (before arguments, the normal way), this means its left argument to the operator is the first argument.
In my opinion, |> is used too much by most F# people. It makes sense to use piping if you have a chain of operations, one after another. Typically for example if you have multiple list operations.
Let's say, you want to square all numbers in a list and then filter only the even ones. Without piping you would write.
List.filter isEven (List.map square [1..10])
Here the second argument to List.filter is a list that is returned by List.map. You can also write it as
List.map square [1..10]
|> List.filter isEven
Piping is Function application, this means, you will execute/run a function, so it computes and returns a value as its result.
In the above example List.map is first executed, and the result is passed to List.filter. That's true with piping and without piping. But sometimes, you want to create another function, instead of executing/running a function. Let's say you want to create a function, from the above. The two versions you could write are
let evenSquares xs = List.filter isEven (List.map square xs)
let evenSquares xs = List.map square xs |> List.filter isEven
You could also write it as function composition.
let evenSquares = List.filter isEven << List.map square
let evenSquares = List.map square >> List.filter isEven
The << operator resembles function composition in the "normal" way, how you would write a function with parenthesis. And >> is the "backwards" compositon, how it would be written with |>.
The F# documentation writes it the other way, what is backward and forward. But i think the F# language creators are wrong.
The function composition operators are defined as:
let (<<) f g x = f (g x)
let (>>) f g x = g (f x)
As you see, the operator has technically three arguments. But remember currying. When you write f << g, then the result is another functions, that expects the last argument x. Passing less arguments then needed is also often called Partial Application.
Function composition is less often used in F#, because the compiler sometimes have problems with type inference if the function arguments are generic.
Theoretically you could write a program without ever defining a variable, just through function composition. This is also named Point-Free style.
I would not recommend it, it often makes code harder to read and/or understand. But it is sometimes used if you want to pass a function to another
Higher-Order function. This means, a functions that take another function as an argument. Like List.map, List.filter and so on.
Pipes and composition operators have simple definition but are difficult to grasp. But once we have understand them, they are super useful and we miss them when we get back to C#.
Here some explanations but you get the best feedbacks from your own experiments. Have fun!
Pipe right operator |>
val |> fn ≡ fn val
Utility:
Building a pipeline, to chain calls to functions: x |> f |> g ≡ g (f x).
Easier to read: just follow the data flow
No intermediary variables
Natural language in english: Subject Verb.
It's regular in object-oriented code : myObject.do()
In F#, the "subject" is usually the last parameter: List.map f list. Using |>, we get back the natural "Subject Verb" order: list |> List.map f
Final benefit but not the least: help type inference:
let items = ["a"; "bb"; "ccc"]
let longestKo = List.maxBy (fun x -> x.Length) items // ❌ Error FS0072
// ~~~~~~~~
let longest = items |> List.maxBy (fun x -> x.Length) // ✅ return "ccc"
Pipe left operator <|
fn <| expression ≡ fn (expression)
Less used than |>
✅ Small benefit: avoiding parentheses
❌ Major drawback: inverse of the english natural "left to right" reading order and inverse of execution order (because of left-associativity)
printf "%i" 1+2 // 💥 Error
printf "%i" (1+2) // With parentheses
printf "%i" <| 1+2 // With pipe left
What about this kind of expression: x |> fn <| y ❓
In theory, allow using fn in infix position, equivalent of fn x y
In practice, it can be very confusing for some readers not used to it.
👉 It's probably better to avoid using <|
Forward composition operator >>
Binary operator placed between 2 functions:
f >> g ≡ fun x -> g (f x) ≡ fun x -> x |> f |> g
Result of the 1st function is used as argument for the 2nd function
→ types must match: f: 'T -> 'U and g: 'U -> 'V → f >> g :'T -> 'V
let add1 x = x + 1
let times2 x = x * 2
let add1Times2 x = times2(add1 x) // 😕 Style explicit but heavy
let add1Times2' = add1 >> times2 // 👍 Style concise
Backward composition operator <<
f >> g ≡ g << f
Less used than >>, except to get terms in english order:
let even x = x % 2 = 0
// even not 😕
let odd x = x |> even |> not
// "not even" is easier to read 👍
let odd = not << even
☝ Note: << is the mathematical function composition ∘: g ∘ f ≡ fun x -> g (f x) ≡ g << f.
It's confusing in F# because it's >> that is usually called the "composition operator" ("forward" being usually omitted).
On the other hand, the symbols used for these operators are super useful to remember the order of execution of the functions: f >> g means apply f then apply g. Even if argument is implicit, we get the data flow direction:
>> : from left to right → f >> g ≡ fun x -> x |> f |> g
<< : from right to left → f << g ≡ fun x -> f <| (g <| x)
(Edited after good advices from David)
I am new to programming and F# is my first .NET language.
I would like to read the contents of a text file, count the number of occurrences of each word, and then return the 10 most common words and the number of times each of them appears.
My questions are: Is using a dictionary encouraged in F#? How would I write the code if I wish to use a dictionary? (I have browsed through the Dictionary class on MSDN, but I am still puzzling over how I can update the value to a key.) Do I always have to resort to using Map in functional programming?
While there's nothing wrong with the other answers, I'd like to point out that there's already a specialized function to get the number of unique keys in a sequence: Seq.countBy. Plumbing the relevant parts of Reed's and torbonde's answers together:
let countWordsTopTen (s : string) =
s.Split([|','|])
|> Seq.countBy (fun s -> s.Trim())
|> Seq.sortBy (snd >> (~-))
|> Seq.truncate 10
"one, two, one, three, four, one, two, four, five"
|> countWordsTopTen
|> printfn "%A" // seq [("one", 3); ("two", 2); ("four", 2); ("three", 1); ...]
My questions are: Is using a dictionary encouraged in F#?
Using a Dictionary is fine from F#, though it does use mutability, so it's not quite as common.
How would I write the code if I wish to use a dictionary?
If you read the file, and have a string with comma separated values, you could
parse using something similar to:
// Just an example of input - this would come from your file...
let strings = "one, two, one, three, four, one, two, four, five"
let words =
strings.Split([|','|])
|> Array.map (fun s -> s.Trim())
let dict = Dictionary<_,_>()
words
|> Array.iter (fun w ->
match dict.TryGetValue w with
| true, v -> dict.[w] <- v + 1
| false, _ -> dict.[w] <- 1)
// Creates a sequence of tuples, with (word,count) in order
let topTen =
dict
|> Seq.sortBy (fun kvp -> -kvp.Value)
|> Seq.truncate 10
|> Seq.map (fun kvp -> kvp.Key, kvp.Value)
I would say an obvious choice for this task is to use the Seq module, which is really one of the major workhorses in F#. As Reed said, using dictionary is not as common, since it is mutable. Sequences, on the other hand, are immutable. An example of how to do this using sequences is
let strings = "one, two, one, three, four, one, two, four, five"
let words =
strings.Split([|','|])
|> Array.map (fun s -> s.Trim())
let topTen =
words
|> Seq.groupBy id
|> Seq.map (fun (w, ws) -> (w, Seq.length ws))
|> Seq.sortBy (snd >> (~-))
|> Seq.truncate 10
I think the code speaks pretty much for itself, although maybe the second last line requires a short explanation:
The snd-function gives the second entry in a pair (i.e. snd (a,b) is b), >> is the functional composition operator (i.e. (f >> g) a is the same as g (f a)) and ~- is the unary minus operator. Note here that operators are essentially functions, but when using (and declaring) them as functions, you have to wrap them in parentheses. That is, -3 is the same as (~-) 3, where in the last case we have used the operator as a function.
In total, what the second last line does, is sort the sequence by the negative value of the second entry in the pair (the number of occurrences).
Is there a way to extract member functions, and use them as F# functions? I'd like to be able to write the following:
mystring |> string.Split '\n' |> Array.filter (string.Length >> (=) 0 >> not)
The code above works if you [let]
let mystring = "a c\nb\n"
let stringSplit (y:char) (x:string) = x.Split(y)
let stringLength (x:string) = x.Length
mystring |> stringSplit '\n' |> Array.filter (stringLength >> (=) 0 >> not)
This is quite similar to a question I asked a few days ago (but your wording is better). The consensus seems to be:
No.
Maybe the syntax string#Split, "foo"#Split, or just #Split (type-inferred) will be added in the future. But Don Syme's proposal that Tomas linked to was from 2007, so I don't know how likely it is to happen--probably about as likely as a specific syntax for laziness, I'd guess.
Edit:
I guess "foo"#Split could also be written as string#Split "foo". I guess it depends how flexibly you define the # syntax.
Use
(fun x -> x.Member ...)
for now. For example
someString |> (fun s -> s.Split "\n") |> ...
how does one convert from a list of characters to a string?
To put it another way, how do I reverse List.ofSeq "abcd"?
UPDATE: new System.String (List.ofSeq "abcd" |> List.toArray) |> printfn "%A" seems to work fine, with or without new, but List.ofSeq "abcd" |> List.toArray) |> new System.String |> printfn "%A" fails. Why?
I asked a similar question once before. It seems object constructors aren't composable so you can't pass them as a function.
List.ofSeq "abcd" |> List.toArray |> (fun s -> System.String s) |> printfn "%A"
List.ofSeq "abcd" |> List.toArray |> (fun s -> new System.String(s)) |> printfn "%A"
Update
Constructors are first-class functions as of F# 4.0
List.ofSeq "abcd" |> List.toArray |> System.String |> printfn "%A"
Working with strings in F# is sometimes a bit uncomfortable. I would probably use the same code as Dario. The F# grammar doesn't allow using constructors as first class functions, so you unfortunately cannot do the whole processing in a single pipeline. In general, you can use static members and instance methods as first class functions, but not instance properties or constructors.
Anyway, there is a really nasty trick you can use to turn a constructor into a function value. I would not recommend actually using it, but I was quite surprised to see that it actually works, so I thought it may be worth sharing it:
let inline ctor< ^R, ^T
when ^R : (static member ``.ctor`` : ^T -> ^R)> (arg:^T) =
(^R : (static member ``.ctor`` : ^T -> ^R) arg)
This defines a function that will be inlined at compile time, which requires that the first type parameter has a constructor that takes a value of the second type parameter. This is specified as a compile-time constraint (because .NET generics cannot express this). Also, F# doesn't allow you to specify this using the usual syntax for specifying constructor constraints (which must take unit as the argument), but you can use the compiled name of constructors. Now you can write for example:
// just like 'new System.Random(10)'
let rnd = ctor<System.Random, _> 10
rnd.Next(10)
And you can also use the result of ctor as first-class function:
let chars = [ 'a'; 'b'; 'c' ]
let str = chars |> Array.ofSeq |> ctor<System.String, _>
As I said, I think this is mainly a curiosity, but a pretty interesting one :-).
Your approach:
new System.String (listOfChars |> List.toArray)
is the solution I usually end up with too.
F#'s grammar/type inference system simply seems unable to recognize a .NET constructor like new String as a curried function (which prevents you from using pipelining).
Just faced similar problem, and came up with this solutions:
List.fold (fun str x -> str + x.ToString()) "" (List.ofSeq "abcd")
I have decided to take up f# as my functional language.
My problem: Give a bunch of 50digits in a file, get the first 10 digits of the sum of each line. (euler problem for those who know)
for example (simplified):
1234567890
The sum is 45
The first "ten" digits or in our case the "first" digit is 4.
Heres my problem,
I read my file of numbers,
I can split it using "\n" and now i have each line, and then I try to convert it to an char array, but the problem comes here. I can't access each element of that array.
let total =
lines.Split([|'\n'|])
|> Seq.map (fun line -> line.ToCharArray())
|> Seq.take 1
|> Seq.to_list
|> Seq.length
I get each line, convert it to array, i take the first array (for testing only), and i try to convert it to list, and then get the length of the list. But this length is the length of how many arrays i have (ie, 1). It should be 50 as thats how many elements there are in the array.
Does anyone know how to pipeline it to access each char?
Seq.take is still returning a seq<char array>. To get only the first array you could use Seq.nth 0.
My final answer:
let total =
lines.Split([|'\n'|])
|> Seq.map (fun line -> line.ToCharArray() |> Array.to_seq)
|> Seq.map (fun eachSeq -> eachSeq
|> Seq.take 50 //get rid of the \r
|> Seq.map (fun c -> Double.Parse(c.ToString()))
|> Seq.skip 10
|> Seq.sum
)
|> Seq.average
is what i got finally and it's working :).
Bascially after I convert it to charArray, i make it a sequence. So now i have a sequence of sequence. Then I can loop through each seqquence.
I'm not 100% sure what you're asking for, but I believe you're trying to write something like this:
lines.Split([|'\n'|) |> Seq.map (fun line -> line.Length)
This converts each line to a sequence of integers representing the length of each line.
Here's my solution:
string(Seq.sumBy bigint.Parse (data.Split[|'\n'|])).Substring(0, 10)
I copied the data into a string, each line separated by x. Then the answer is one line (wrapped for SO):
let ans13 = data |> String.split ['x'] |> Seq.map Math.BigInt.Parse
|> Seq.reduce (+)
If you are reading it from a file, you'd add the file reading code:
let ans13 = IO.File.ReadAllLines("filename") |> Seq.map Math.BigInt.Parse
|> Seq.reduce (+)
Edit: Actually, I'm not sure we're talking about the same Euler problem -- this is for 13, but your description sounds slightly different. To get the first 10 digits after the summing, do:
printfn "%s" <| String.sub (string ans13) 0 10